Romans 5:12-21

[MoreCoffee]

Your welcome. You also went straight to a commentary rather than observe what it says yourself. Then you went on to talk about other commentaries without actually observing what the text says. So...what does the text say?

It says that the commentary was interesting and worth reading.

 

[hedrick]

Actually, the OP wasn't "what do you think is the best exegesis of this passage?" It was about the way churches have built their understanding of original sin on it. Both questions are important.

 

[MennoSota]

It says that the commentary was interesting and worth reading.

It says you refuse to examine the scriptures without first being told what it means. Your method is not mine. I wish you would use inductive Bible study, but it seems it's not the way you were trained.

 

[MennoSota]

Romans 5:8-21

[8]But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.

The way God showed his love for us (the elect) is by sending Messiah to die for us. He died for us while we were still sinners. (In rebellion)

[9]And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation.

The blood of Messiah, his death, made us righteous before God. Not any work we do. Only God. God will condemn us for our sins, but Messiah's blood will redeem us.

[10]For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son.

God ended our rebellion and provided restored friendship with us by God the Son's death. It is through Jesus resurrection that we are saved (not of our own works).

[11]So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.

Rejoice! We have a new relationship. We are no longer considered rebels. We are considered friends because Jesus has bridged that gap between us and God the Father. We are now friends of God.

[12]When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

How did this rebellion begin? When Adam sinned.
It was at that moment that sin entered the world. The consequence of that sin brought death and it spread to everyone for everyone sinned. (We all sinned in Adam.)

[13]Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break.

Sin was not called sin because there was no established law. God's holiness has always been, but God had not yet given the moral law.

[14]Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come.

Even though there was no moral law, still people died. So God still exacted justice, even though he had not created a law for people to keep.
Adam was a type of the Messiah who was to come. (How so? This may be a reference to Adam before he sinned.)

[15]But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.

A contrast between Adams sin and God's unmerited gift.
Adams sin brought death to many (not all?)
God's unmerited favor is greater than sin.
God's gift of forgiveness is to many though Jesus, the Messiah.

[16]And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins.

What are the results of the two contrasted things (Adams sin and God's gift)?
Adams sin led to God condemning us.
God's free, unmerited, gift led to righteousness, even though we have sinned and are guilty of these sins.

[17]For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.

Adams one sin caused death to rule over many.
BUT
God's unmerited favor and gift of righteousness is greater. All who receive it as a gift (notice the word is not "accept it." This means it is given and the elect get it as a gift.) live a triumphant life over sin (why don't Christians claim this?) and over death through Jesus the Messiah.

[18]Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.

Adams sin brings condemnation to everyone.
Messiah's righteous act brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone. (Does this teach universalism? The word "brings" makes it a potential, but scripture shows not everyone believes. Thus the bringing and the actualizing are different things.)

[19]Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.

One person (Adam) disobeyed God. Many became sinners (not all? How might this be reconciled with the earlier verses where all have sinned?)
One person obeyed God. Many will be made righteous. (not all? How might this be reconciled with the earlier verse using the word, everyone?)

[20]God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God’s wonderful grace became more abundant.

The purpose of the law was to reveal how rebellious and disobedient all people are. It was not given to make us more righteous, which is the false concept many people, including Christians, have.
BUT
The more rebellious people are, God amazing unmerited favor becomes even greater!!!

[21]So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful grace rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What does this mean?
Sin kept people in slavery. Sin brought death.
BUT
God's unmerited favor is the ruler over the elect (us). God's unmerited favor makes us right with God. The result is eternal life (not death). This eternal life comes only through (in) the Messiah, Jesus who is our Sovereign King and Lord.

That's my observation of the passage. I'm not claiming to be right. I'm just providing my observation of the passage.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It says you refuse to examine the scriptures without first being told what it means. Your method is not mine. I wish you would use inductive Bible study, but it seems it's not the way you were trained.

Most of the time I use a translation so I suppose that most of the time I am reading what somebody tells me the Greek means in Romans 5:12-21 but today I read the Greek for myself and that is closer to reading what the author said rather than what somebody tells me it says. The first post English translation is quite good. The commentary is interesting and useful.

Commentaries are no worse than the interpretations that readers of the English translations offer. In many cases commentaries are better than off the cuff opinions offered by readers of the English translation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Actually, the OP wasn't "what do you think is the best exegesis of this passage?" It was about the way churches have built their understanding of original sin on it. Both questions are important.

You are correct sir. The first post - written by me - is asking about the meaning of the passage in the light of saint Augustine's development of a doctrine of original sin and the subsequent development of expanded/augmented/altered doctrines of original sin developed by others and especially the development of the doctrine under the influence of John Calvin and his followers and Martin Luther and his followers.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION], The paragraph preceding Romans 5:12-21 is Romans 5:6-11 which says

Romans 5:6 Consider, moreover, the time that Christ died for us: when we were still helpless and unable to do anything. 7 Few would accept to die for an upright person; although, for a very good person, perhaps someone would dare to die. 8 But see how God manifested his love for us: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us; 9 and we have become just, through his blood. With much more reason now he will save us from any condemnation. 10 Once enemies, we have been reconciled with God through the death of his Son; with much more reason, now we may be saved, through his life. 11 Not only that, but we even boast in God because of Christ Jesus, our Lord, through whom we have been reconciled.

The footnotes say:

Christ died for us when we were still sinners (v. 6). We are accustomed to hear about Christ dying for our sins, and often enough we are not touched, for his sacrifice seems to be far away and quite unreal. When by the grace of God we understand it, love suddenly pours from our hearts. Return love for love: this is the beginning of true conversion. We have become just through his blood (v. 9). The text says precisely: We have been justified. Was the blood of Christ necessary? We have said with regard to Romans 3:25 that Paul depended on the religious vocabulary of his time: the forgiveness of sins for the Jews was obtained by the blood of sacrificed victims. The prophets had already declared that the streams of blood from the temple were of no value without obedience to God. Certain people understood that the true sacrifice able to reconcile the world was the sufferings and humiliations of the faithful minority of God’s people (Isaiah 52:13). Whatever the explanation given, the salvation of the world passes through the sufferings and the death of the innocent, and the people of God must accept to be among the victims of violence. So it is that the violent death and the blood shed by Jesus are part of God’s language and also part of human experience. Paul knew this well, he who had taken part in the murder of Stephen (Acts 22:20).​

Saint Paul also counted his own sufferings as playing a role in the salvation of his readers.
Colossians 1:24 At present, I rejoice when I suffer for you; I complete, in my own flesh, what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25 For I am serving the church since God entrusted to me the ministry to make the word of God fully known. 26 I mean that mysterious plan that, for centuries and generations, remained secret, and which God has now revealed to his holy ones.

I complete in my own flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (v. 24). After Christ’s death something would be lacking in the salvation of the world, if Jesus’ followers and apostles did not, in their turn, meet with trials and sufferings. Working for the Church means suffering for the Church; to work for the rule of justice is to suffer for the sake of justice​

Colossians 1:27 God willed to make known to them the riches, and even the glory, that his mysterious plan reserved for the pagan nations: Christ is in you, the hope for glory.

His mysterious plan (v. 27): see Ephesians 3:5. We must not forget that in those days, no one even thought of the common destiny of humanity: they did not even speak of humanity. Moreover, neither the Greeks nor the Romans looked beyond their actual existence. Paul is amazed by the generosity of God whose promises are for all people, without distinction (v. 27). We, too, are offered nothing less than a share in the glory of God, that is to say, all the riches found in him.​

Colossians 1:28 This Christ, we preach. We warn, and teach everyone true wisdom, aiming to make everyone perfect, in Christ. 29 For this cause I labour and struggle, with the energy of Christ working powerfully in me.

 

[MennoSota]

Most of the time I use a translation so I suppose that most of the time I am reading what somebody tells me the Greek means in Romans 5:12-21 but today I read the Greek for myself and that is closer to reading what the author said rather than what somebody tells me it says. The first post English translation is quite good. The commentary is interesting and useful.

Commentaries are no worse than the interpretations that readers of the English translations offer. In many cases commentaries are better than off the cuff opinions offered by readers of the English translation.

Commentaries are best read after your own observations so you can find out how you differ. If no one agrees with you, it should be a clue that you are missing something in your own observation.

 

[Josiah]

Actually, the OP wasn't "what do you think is the best exegesis of this passage?" It was about the way churches have built their understanding of original sin on it. Both questions are important.

Correct.


The opening poster states this thread is about Original Sin. Even implies it is a continuation of another thread on that topic now closed.


Yes, the opening poster claims that Protestants have a doctrine on Original Sin (which he has repeatedly refused to describe) that is taken from Romans 5:12-21. I think he is wrong. And he has not event attempted to support his claim.


I have TRIED to give the usual Protestant understanding of Original Sin (which several - even an agnostic - has affirmed as accurate) which the opening poster has chosen to ignore and circumvent. And I have shown that it is NOT based entirely (or even primarily) on Romans 5:12-21.


The opening posters' obsession here is a mystery to me. This is a topic on which there is nearly complete agreement between most Protestants and Catholics. It's the Eastern Orthodox who disagree with us (a bit) yet he has chosen to make this about Protestants. I think he is TRYING to make some debate out of nothing (the reason is a mystery to me). TRYING to claim that Protestants have some dogma different than what I described (by evading what I post that has been widely affirmed) and refusing to say what this heretical Protestant dogma on Original Sin is.


Perhaps the Opening Poster could state exactly how which Protestant denominations have constructed heretical dogmas on Original Sin specifically via the words of this text.

You are correct sir. The first post - written by me - is asking about the meaning of the passage in the light of saint Augustine's development of a doctrine of original sin and the subsequent development of expanded/augmented/altered doctrines of original sin developed by others and especially the development of the doctrine under the influence of John Calvin and his followers and Martin Luther and his followers.

1. Interesting you see St. Augustine as a Protestant. While I've seen that claim from Calvinists, it's interesting seeing it from a Catholic. You are the first known to me, friend.


2. You note Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and claim it contains some heretical dogma of Original Sin. Friend, I've read that book (no simple task). It's not about original sin, it's about justification. Yes, the book often references St. Augustine but in reference to justification; his point being monergism. I suggest you read the book. You will find profound support for monergism (and also the reason why your denomination's synergism could not tolerate Luther's view), and you will find nothing "new" on Original Sin. Again, this is a doctrine where most Protestants and Catholics largely AGREE. It's the Eastern Orthodox who disagree with you, my friend.

Seconded. Stick to the topic.

The topic IS Original Sin and specifically the Protestant understanding of such. It's just that the opening poster has chosen to circumvent the typical Protestant view in lieu of some mysterious, unstated heretical view that remains undefined but is held by some unnamed Protestant denominations.





A blessed Holy Week to all....



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

You are correct sir. The first post - written by me - is asking about the meaning of the passage in the light of saint Augustine's development of a doctrine of original sin and the subsequent development of expanded/augmented/altered doctrines of original sin developed by others and especially the development of the doctrine under the influence of John Calvin and his followers and Martin Luther and his followers.

You ignored the actual passage and simply jump to Augustine, Luther and Calvin. All three are irrelevant to what the passage actually teaches about the sin of Adam and how that affects humanity. Romans 5 gives us a clear snapshot that we can discuss without the need of Augustine, Luther or Calvin.